Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024, and I move the amendment circulated in my name:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:

(1) the bill prioritises ideology over outcome by failing to be technology-agnostic;

(2) the bill shows a clear bias against hydro in favour of wind and solar which will disproportionately impact Tasmania and threatens to increase the cost of certificates for industry;

(3) in exempting technologies the Government doesn't like, such as blue and pink hydrogen, the bill does not align with overseas schemes;

(4) the bill risks being a Trojan horse for a broader economy-wide carbon price; and

(5) the bill bears little resemblance to the policy of the former Government".

The government will claim that these bills are non-controversial. In fact, as the Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy suggested in his second reading speech, it concludes four years of effort by the department, therefore building on the work of the former coalition government. In other words, the Albanese Labor government is seeking to tell the Australian people that these guarantee of origin bills are simply building on the previous coalition government's work in the exact same field; however, when it comes to establishing a guarantee of origin scheme, what is before the House bears little to no resemblance whatsoever to that which the coalition government was pursuing when in office. Labor has done what Labor always does. It has very cleverly tried to play the politics, effectively stealing the labelling of a scheme—a guarantee of origin scheme—from the coalition and pretending it has built on that while keeping the basic tenets in place, yet it has in fact completely hijacked the substance of that scheme and made it into something entirely different, and those differences we'll unravel today.

But, before I get into the specifics of the bill, let me at least address some of the issues raised by the Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy in his address to this chamber on these bills. The assistant minister spoke about the importance of introducing Labor's Guarantee of Origin scheme to continue the prosperous and sustainable evolution of Australian industry. Clearly, the assistant minister wrote that speech in the bubble of this parliament, because out there in the real world industry is struggling. Industry is on its knees, in large part because of the mismanagement of climate and energy policy in this country. Only today, yet another report came out, this one focusing on small businesses in Australia, where 63 per cent of Australian small businesses have told CommBank in its survey that they cannot afford the energy transition being put by the Albanese Labor government. Over the last two years alone we have seen a tripling of insolvencies. Manufacturing in particular is on its knees. Why? Because this government went to the Australian people promising a $275 reduction in power bills, only to preside over the highest electricity bills Australia has ever seen. Australian industry, which the assistant minister thinks is prospering, is now paying among the highest electricity and gas prices in the world.

The second point I want to make about the assistant minister's speech is his suggestion that Labor's Future Made in Australia policy is all about leveraging Australia's comparative advantage. Indeed, anybody who studied economics would understand the importance of leveraging a nation's comparative advantage. Yet the first announcement under this scheme was for solar panel manufacturing. The second announcement was for quantum computing. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with solar panel manufacturing, and quantum computing is vitally important. But the point here is neither of those sectors represents a comparative advantage for our nation. This is the centrepiece of Labor's economic policy, which is meant to be leveraging Australia's comparative advantage, and the first two announcements they come out with are actually not things Australia has a comparative advantage in.

The third thing I want to point to in the assistant minister's speech is his suggestion that Australia has abundant clean energy resources. On that point he is right except when you see how he interprets that in the context of these bills, and it's how Labor, moreover, interprets clean energy. The abundant resources to which the assistant minister and other Labor ministers refer are only those of sunshine and wind. What they fail to acknowledge is Australia also has abundant resources including gas and including the very resource they refuse to even acknowledge: uranium. Uranium right now is powering nuclear energy power plants the world over and creating zero emissions electricity. We already are a clean energy superpower in this country, but Labor will deny that because they are only interested in a renewables-only approach.

You see, Deputy Speaker, this is the very problem we have with the bills that are before the House. Labor have taken what should be a bipartisan approach to establishing a guarantee of origin scheme specific to hydrogen, and they have applied their all-eggs-in-one-basket, renewables-only dogma, and they have fundamentally changed the intent of this scheme. The intent itself, I must say, I agree with. The intent itself, at a very high level, is to establish a guarantee of origin scheme for hydrogen—one that allows the tracking and verification of emissions for that product so that buyers and sellers in the marketplace can understand from where that product comes and its emissions profile. At that level, there is no problem with this scheme. But in the detail, where Labor has applied their renewables-only dogma, it all goes wrong.

Firstly, unlike the coalition's approach, Labor has decided not to be technology agnostic when it comes to establishing this guarantee of origin scheme. Instead, true to form, Labor has decided it knows best on the specific technology for Australia's future, and it can only be renewables, with no consideration for any other technology. In contrast, the coalition believes that renewables will play a vitally important role in Australia's future, but it is not the only technology for our future; it is but one, albeit a very important one. Labor's scheme is not technology agnostic. When the coalition was looking at introducing a guarantee of origin scheme—we had done the consultation and we had put out the basic terms of reference and scope for a trial—the coalition's scheme was to 'include projects across a range of production methods, including renewable electricity, biomethane, and coal and gas with substantial carbon capture and storage'. The bills before the House are silent on those methods, other than renewables. Herein lies the problem. Indeed, one of the mechanisms enabling the guarantee of origin scheme is the renewable energy guarantee of origin certificates, again confirming that this government's approach to the guarantee of origin scheme for hydrogen is solely focused on one colour of hydrogen: green hydrogen. That's their preference. That's what they are going after. That is why we do not see a true technology agnostic approach coming through with these bills.

The second point I'll make is that these bills are not just reinforcing Labor's dogma of renewables only but, within the family of renewable technology, they unfortunately bias wind and solar to the detriment of hydro, which is why you see Hydro Tasmania concerned that they will not be eligible to the same extent as companies that since 1997 have introduced and installed renewable projects. To make clear how perverse the implementation of such a thing would be: Tasmania would be using zero-emissions hydro to produce hydrogen, but, in order to go to market and receive the premium for such green hydrogen, they'd probably have to buy certificates from the mainland. So perverse is how it would work in reality as suggested by this bill.

Thirdly, one of the key priorities when the coalition was in government and looking at a guarantee-of-origin scheme was to ensure that the scheme would work in concert with those of other countries. Indeed, one of the findings—and I again quote from the consultation that we did in office—was: 'A local scheme must be internationally aligned and accepted by our trading partners.' Again, it's notable that the guarantee-of-origin schemes being established by the EU and the UK express a far larger appreciation for different colours of hydrogen than does the Labor Party, including, for example, blue hydrogen with carbon capture and storage—that is the use of gas. That is something Labor has been silent about through this entire process.

There's also the risk that what Labor is doing is introducing a Trojan Horse that will see the expansion of what will effectively be a carbon price across other sectors. We know this is a risk because, instead of containing the guarantee-of-origin scheme to hydrogen, the government has made it very clear that it intends to expand the guarantee-of-origin scheme to other products across the Australian economy. And the government has not put parameters around which products would be included. They've given examples, but they have not provided any parameters. So, there is a risk that this is in fact a Trojan Horse to apply this far more widely than the government has suggested so far.

If Labor's schemes in climate change and energy were working fine, I think the coalition would be more willing to accept Labor's word on face value. But let's have a look at what they've done so far. This is the same government that walked into this chamber and legislated for 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030. When this side of the House, the coalition, called on the government to at least get the likes of the Productivity Commission to do the economic modelling so they could tell us exactly how it could be achieved and who would pay—what the impact would be on the economy—this government refused to do that. But they legislated the 43 per cent emissions-reduction target.

After successive years of emissions reduction from Australia under the coalition, what has happened over the last two years since Labor came to office? Emissions have gone up. This is their track record. The same government that came to office promising a $275 reduction in household power bills have refused, to this day, to come to this dispatch box and concede that it was a broken promise. Australians in some parts of the country have seen electricity bills not go down by $275 but increase by up to $1,000 more than Labor promised them. This is their track record. The same government promised an electricity grid of 82 per cent renewables by 2030. Now, in order to achieve 82 per cent, they need nearly seven gigawatts of new renewable generation installed every single year—up to seven gigawatts. Last year it was 1.3, so there's Buckley's chance.

This is why we have yet another bill here today, the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill. It speaks again to their dogma of all eggs in one basket, renewables only. They want the Australian people just to take their word for it? 'My word is my bond' was the commitment of our now Prime Minister. Seriously? Every member of this parliament has an obligation to the people they serve, and I certainly have an obligation to my own constituents.

This government does not have a track record that should be trusted when it comes to climate change and energy. Every single promise they have made to date they have broken. Now, I accept that the assistant minister, who I have to say is a very decent man, might believe, hand on heart, that Labor are doing the right thing, but their track record says otherwise. There are holes all through this bill. So what do you do in this situation as the coalition? You do the right thing by the parliament and the Australian people. You seek more scrutiny of the bill.

Yesterday I stood at this very dispatch box, and I put forward a motion to the House seeking more scrutiny of the bills we are now debating, in the hope that the Standing Committee on Economics could do a review, consistent with standing order 143 of this parliament—that a cross-parliamentary committee could take these bills away, do more scrutiny and answer some of the questions I've raised today. But the Labor Party voted against that motion. They were going to be party to that review. They refused consideration.

What does that tell us about the confidence of the Albanese government that they are refusing scrutiny of these bills, of a guarantee-of-origin scheme, when we have outlined concerns in good faith? They refused to have that scrutiny. There are members of this House of Representatives that wanted that scrutiny. They denied it. And now they're going to cry crocodile tears: 'Why didn't you just push this thing through?' It's because the track record of this government is one of failure, it's because there are too many holes in these bills, it's because there are too many outstanding questions that have not been answered and it's because this government has refused the scrutiny put forward in a motion of this parliament. They all came into the chamber and they voted against scrutiny of these bills.

Is this the first time, I ask, that the Albanese government have refused scrutiny of their Future Made in Australia policy? No, it's not. In the last sitting of the parliament we had the Future Made in Australia bills before this House. There's a part of our procedures in this House referred to as consideration in detail which allows members of this parliament to debate and ask questions of the relevant minister. When it came to the Future Made in Australia bills in the last sitting of parliament, that session of consideration in detail was gagged. People were gagged. A guillotine came down. Nah! The Labor Party, the Albanese government, did not want scrutiny of the primary bills for their Future Made in Australia policy. Now we have bills that form part of the Future Made in Australia, on the Guarantee of Origin scheme. We have fair and reasonable concerns, and this government refuses to have the parliament and therefore the people of Australia scrutinise the bills. Now they want us all to come in, hold hands, sing kumbaya and say: 'Yes, Prime Minister. Yes, Labor Party. Your word is your bond. We'll just take it on trust.'

Let me come to a conclusion here. When it comes to a Guarantee of Origin scheme focused on hydrogen, so that we can have verification and tracking of emissions in that product to ensure that Australian companies can receive a premium where they have produced low-emissions hydrogen—with that we agree entirely. In fact, it was the coalition which started the entire process, but the Albanese government has done what it always does. It has played the politics, not the policy, as it did with 'made in Australia'. Generations of Australian men and women have built the 'made in Australia' brand overseas, creating goodwill. The Albanese government comes in. It steals that brand for itself, packages up what is nothing more than a 'big government picking winners' approach, and calls it an industry policy. So, too, they have done with the Guarantee of Origin bills. They have taken a coalition policy, kept the label and fundamentally reformed the substance. And then they have the gall to expect the Australian parliament and therefore the Australian people just to roll over, get tickled on the tummy and trust them. That's not the way it works, and that's not the way it should work.

I say to members opposite: if you want to carry the Australian people on climate change and energy, it starts with transparency. If you want to carry this parliament, especially the coalition, it means being open. It means working with us. It means not denying scrutiny of the bills. Unfortunately, though, that's not what has been played out here. Here we are dealing with a bill which is fundamentally different from the intent where it started.

See this speech in context